glow: should I rename my package before submitting to vcpkg?

[rioki]

With my last port submissions I have seen vcpkg is now checking for popular names and I actually find this super commendable, since there are conflicts bound to happen.

In 2016 I wrote the OpenGL Object Wrapper: glow. Now other people quite obviously got the same idea; though no C++ project actually rose to prominence. There is the GLOW JS library and as a result some Linux packages.

The glow library does not have many users and as a result reaming it would be an option. I would consider it now or never, especially considering that I am dusting off the project, rekindling maintenance (by adding more advanced stuff and Vulkan support) and integrating it into more prominent projects.

Can you please give me some guidance before I get my port rejected and hit a brick wall?

[ras0219-msft]

Glad you agree with this important policy and thanks for asking ahead of time!

Yes, we would recommend renaming the package to a longer name (which could still include glow -- e.g. rioki-glow just like nlohmann-json). As you note, while there isn't a current C/C++ conflict, there is the JS library conflict as well as a command line go application https://repology.org/project/glow/versions which has already taken the name glow in many Linux distributions. Because vcpkg aims for compatibility across different platforms and ecosystems, we do take significant non-C/C++ projects into account when looking at name conflicts.

[rioki]

Thank you, I was already considered the nlohmann-json pattern. That might be a reasonable idea. I have not yet made up my mind if the library really should stand on it's own. But we will see what the next few weeks hold in store.